Monday, 22 December 2003

Joe's latest, some interesting analysis here. Make up your own mind about it...

by Joe Vialls

Everyone knows that when police officers pick up a suspect, the last thing on their minds is running a complex two-day DNA test to check his ancestry, or to see whether suspect whatshisname might allegedly be predisposed to Alzheimer’s or some other quasi-medical horror. Of course not! If there is the slightest doubt about identity, police officers fingerprint whatshisname, and then compare those prints with incriminating prints from various different crime scenes. Get sufficient identical characteristics or “points” with fingerprinting, and you have the perfect match.

In the case of the real President Saddam Hussein this would be simplicity itself, because perfect copies of the Iraqi Leader’s thumb prints are scattered liberally across Baghdad, and are also held in the safes of one German and two British companies, including the Morris Singer Foundry. During 1986 Morris Singer was part of a German-led consortium, which cast the bronze arms for Saddam Hussein's enormous Hands of Victory Arch in Baghdad. We will return to this fascinating story later.

Unfortunately, fingerprints would have proved the complete undoing of the recent Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld mega-scam in Tikrit, which relied primarily on “smoke and mirrors” to convince a very skeptical world population that America was really winning the war in Iraq, meaning in turn that all countries opposed to America’s illegal invasion should now get on board, and start throwing some heavy cash in the general direction of Washington, DC.

The second purpose of the Tikrit mega-scam was to psychologically undermine the Iraqi people, which was carefully arranged by ensuring that whatshisname crawled out of his hole in the ground without firing a shot, and then meekly submitted to intimate personal handling by a heavyweight skinhead American doctor. They teach this basic crap in Psych 101, and the underlying message for the Iraqis was, “What kind of leader hides in a hole during the heat of battle, and refuses to put up a fight?” Almost without realizing it, the reader is drawn inexorably backwards in time to September 11, 2001, when President George W. Bush scuttled down into a deep “spider hole” beneath Offutt AFB in Nebraska, and sat there sucking his thumb until the “All Clear” was sounded. George had a much bigger [fully air conditioned] spider hole of course, with the extra space needed to accommodate his grossly inflated ego.

At the tertiary level, the Tikrit mega-scam severely damaged the American Democrats, who were left with nothing constructive to say in the run-up to the presidential elections. There is no doubt that Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld thought they were killing three birds with one stone, but these academic retards were evidently looking north from Baghdad towards Tikrit when they hatched the plan, and forgot to look in their rear view mirrors. Had they bothered to do so, whatshisname would have been hurriedly buried again forever, with a giant D9 bulldozer blade

The population of Iraq is almost evenly split between Sunni Muslims in the north of the country, generally controlled by the Baath Party, and Shi’ite Muslims in the south, who are heavily influenced and thus motivated by Shi’ite clerics. It was the southern Shi’ites who were approached by the CIA during late 1990 and early 1991, with a request that they “Rise up against Saddam”, who, the CIA assured them, “was severely weakened by the Gulf War.” The nice folk from Langley also offered the hapless Shi’ites limitless quantities of hard cash, weapons, ammunition, Coca-Cola and Big Macs.

Quite why the Shi’ites chose to believe the CIA with its obvious Mossad connections, we may never know, but they took up their Ak-47s and RPGs and headed north anyway, slaughtering everything in sight that looked even remotely like a Sunni Muslim. President Hussein was not best pleased, and sent about three Republican Guard tank divisions to meet the Shi’ites head-on. Though actual numbers are still elusive, it is widely believed that between 15,000 and 20,000 Shi’ites were killed in less than one month.

The Shi’ites desperately tried to contact their new friends at the CIA for air support, ammo, and all the others things Langley had promised by the ton, but sadly all they got was an answering machine. Apparently the spooks were away on vacation in Florida, and in no mood to be disturbed by a bunch of “Ayrabs” they had forgotten weeks earlier. Put another way, in the finest traditions of the American Intelligence Community, the CIA had backed out of the deal.

And so it was that in less than a calendar month, the Shi’ite Muslims of southern Iraq learned two very powerful emotions. First was acute fear of Saddam Hussein, and second was acute hatred of the CIA and all Americans in general. In order to understand the monumental cock-up that Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have just made with the Tikrit mega-scam, it is vital to understand the difference between these two emotions, and the implications that flow from them.

The only thing stopping southern Iraqi Shi’ites from killing the American invaders, was fear that when the U.S. was eventually driven out of Iraq, Saddam would again crush them as he did back in 1991. But by “Capturing Saddam” the Americans have removed that fear, thus inviting Moqtada al-Sadr to open a southern front against the invaders.

This is where the hatred comes into play. Not only do the Shi’ites blame America for getting fifteen to twenty thousand of them killed back in 1991, they also rightfully blame America for their thousands of citizens killed and horribly maimed by fragmentation weapons, since the illegal invasion started earlier this year. Every Shi’ite male in southern Iraq wants a piece or several pieces of a U.S. soldier, and with Saddam Hussein now “in captivity”, they are no longer inhibited in their actions. The Shi’ites feared Saddam, but they certainly do not fear Americans, who they collectively and disdainfully regard as undisciplined rabble.

This is a superb article, written by Mike in 200 but reposted and updated by him recently.

by Micael Rivero

It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need.

In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licineus Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of it's worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private land holder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero.

In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan.

Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. But Spartacus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Spartacus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.
Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Spartacus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Spartacus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Spartacus had no choice but to march on Rome.

Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus' army and even though Pompeii took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year.
With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome.

The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.

Julius Caesar's political opponent, Cicero, for all his literary accomplishments, played the same games in his campaign against Julius Caesar, claiming that Rome was falling victim to an internal "vast right wing" conspiracy in which any expressed desire for legislative limits on government was treated as suspicious behavior. Cicero, in order to demonstrate to the Romans just how unsafe Rome has become hired thugs to cause as much disturbance as possible, and campaigned on a promise to end the internal strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers.
What Cicero only dreamed of, Adolph Hitler succeeded in doing. Elected Chancellor of Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his power imposed by German law. Unlike Cicero, Hitler's thugs were easy to recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary powers.

Then the Reichstag burned down; a staged terrorist attack.

The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the total rule of Der Fuhrer.

The state-sponsored schools will never tell you this, but governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared to leave no other choice.

Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that We The People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in.

Thursday, 18 December 2003

John Hinckley Jr., who shot Ronald Reagan in 1981, is about to be partially released from confinement after testimony from government psychiatrists. Hinckley's family and the family of President George W. Bush have long, complicated ties that have been little reported. Hinckley's brother was scheduled to have dinner at the home of the current President Bush's brother the day after the assassination attempt.

Nov. 26, 2003 - John Hinckley Jr., who has been hospitalized since shooting President Ronald Reagan in 1981, might receive permission any day from a federal judge to make unsupervised visits to his parents' home. Hinckley's family and the family of President George W. Bush have long social, political, and economic ties that have been little reported. Hinckley's brother was scheduled to have dinner at the home of the current President Bush's brother the day after the assassination attempt.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman recently said he would let John W. Hinckley, Jr., make the visits with certain restrictions, but he first wanted to hear testimony officials at St. Elizabeths Hospital, where Hinckley is being treated. Today that condition was met when Paul Montalbano of St. Elizabeths testified that Hinckley is ready for visits under conditions recommended by government experts.

Today also, John Hinckley, Jr.'s, bid for unsupervised visits with his parents received a further boost as two psychiatrists testifying for the government said the request from the man who shot President Reagan should be approved but only under more restrictions than previously proposed.

The families of Ronald Reagan and James Brady, his press secretary, who received a head wound (and whose wife successfully promoted the gun-control Brady Bill), have opposed the release. Just after the shooting, Hinckley's family made an assurance similar to those being made now, saying through an attorney, "recent evaluations alerted no one to the seriousness of his condition."

Hinckley has been confined to the St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, DC, since he shot Reagan three others. The visists would be to his parents' home in Williamsburg, Virginia. He was tried for the incident but acquitted by reason of insanity after his lawyer, the legendary Edward Bennett Williams, argued that Hinckley shot the president to impress actress Jody Foster.

Vice president George H.W. Bush, father of the current president, George Bush, Jr., assumed the duties of the presidency briefly after the shooting and nearly became president as Reagan almost died from the shooting. A bullet missed his aorta by less than an inch.

The Bush and Hinckley families go back to the oil-wildcatting days of the 1960s in Texas. (Ironically, they go back even farther in a genealogical sense, since the have a common ancestor in Samuel Hinckley, who lived in the late 1600s.)

The relationship was much closer between George Bush, Sr., and John Hinckley, Sr., whose families were neighbors for years in Houston. John Hinckley, Sr., contributed to the political campaigns of Bush, Sr., all the way back to Bush's running for Congress, and he supported Bush against Reagan for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination. Bush, Sr., and Hinckley, Sr., were both in the oil business. When the Hinckley oil company, Vanderbilt Oil, started to fail in the 1960s, Bush, Sr.'s, Zapata Oil financially bailed out Hinckley's sompany. Hinckley had been running an operation with six dead wells, but he began making several milliion dollars a year after the Bush bailout.

Scott Hinckley, John's brother, was scheduled to have dinner at the Denver home of Neil Bush, Bush, Sr.'s, son (and of course the current president's brother) the day after the shooting. At the time, Neil Bush was a Denver-based purchaser of mineral rights for Amoco, and Scott Hinckley was the vice president of his father's Denver-based oil business.

On the day of the shooting, NBC news anchor John Chancellor, eyebrows raised, informed the viewers of the nightly news that the man who tried to kill the president was acquainted with the son of the man who would have become president had the attack succeeded. As a matter of fact, Chancellor reported in a bewildered tone, Scott Hinckley and Neil Bush had been scheduled to have dinner together at the home of the (then) vice-president's son (Neil) the very next night.

The story of the Bush-Hinckley connection was reported on the AP and UPI newswires and in some newspapers, including the Houston Post, which apparently originated the story. It was also reported in Newsweek magazine. Then the story about one of the strangest coincidences in presidential assassination history simply disappeared. (The AP story is quoted in its entirety at the end of this article, not for commercial use but solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.)

In reference to whether the current president, George W. Bush, knew the would-be assassin, John Hinckley, Bush said at the time, "It's certainly conceivable that I met him or might have been introduced to him. I don't recognize his face from the brief, kind of distorted thing they had on TV and the name doesn't ring any bells. I know he wasn't on out staff. I could check our volunteer rolls." There is no record that he ever did this or ever commented after further reflection and seeing better photographs.

Neil Bush used a similar line in denying he knew John Hinckley. "I have no idea," he said. "I don't recognize any pictures of him. I just wish I could see a better picture of him." Besides all of the family ties, Neil Bush lived in Lubbock, Texas, throughout much of 1978, where Reagan shooter Hinckley lived from 1974-1980. During this period, in 1978, Neil Bush served as campaign manager for the current president's unsuccessful run for Congress.

Neil's wife, Sharon Bush, who is writing an expose of the family, said, at the time, that Scott Hinckley was coming as a date of a girl friend of hers. "I don't even know the brother. From what I've heard, they are a very nice family and have given a lot of money to the Bush campaign. I understand he was just the renegade brother in the family."

The dinner date was canceled. (If it hadn't been, it would have been the ultimate case of "Guess who's coming to Dinner?")

Ironically, Scott Hinckley was called on the carpet by the U.S. Department of Enegy on the day Reagan was shot. The DOE told Hinckley it might place a $2 million penalty on his company.

The following AP story is quoted not for commercial use but solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.

EVERGREEN, Colo. The parents of John W. Hinckley, Jr., "just destroyed" by their son's alleged assassination attempt on President Reagan, hope to see him "as soon as possible" but have no definite travel plans, their attorney said. The Hinckleys, through attorney James Robinson, issued a brief statement Tuesday expressing their "deep concern" for President Reagan and all those involved in Monday's shooting, including their son, John. Robinson said the Hinckleys had spoken to their son Monday night and Tuesday afternoon and were trying to hire a Washington lawyer for him. It was confirmed later in Washington that the Hinckleys had retained the law firm of millionaire defense attorney Edward Bennett Williams.

The Hinckleys said they planned to see their son "as soon as possible, but at this time they have no definite travel plans worked out," Robinson said. They sent "personal expressions of sorrow" to the wounded men and their families, he said. The Hinckleys reiterated through Robinson that they have provided psychiatric care for their son in the past, adding that "recent evaluations alerted no one to the seriousness of his condition."

William Sells, the Hinckleys' next door neighbor and in whose home the Hinckleys were staying Tuesday, said the couple was "just destroyed" by their son's arrest and the attempt made on Reagan's life.

In Washington, an aide to Vice President George Bush disputed a Houston Post report that the Hinckleys made large contributions to Bush's presidential campaign. The aide, Shirley Green, said no record of such a contribution could be found.

The Houston newspaper also reported that Scott Hinckley was to have dined Tuesday night in Denver at the home of Neil Bush, on of the vice president's sons. Neil Bush's wife Sharon said Scott Hinckley was coming to their house as the date of one of her girlfriends. "I don't even know the brother," she said. "I understand he was just the renegade brother in the family. They must feel awful."

The FBI investigated a bomb threat directed against the Hinckleys on Tuesday, but nothing came of it.

The senior Hinckley is described by associates as a devout Christian who belonged to a weekly Bible reading club and recently did work in Africa for a Christian service organization.

John Hinckley and his wife stayed at their next-door neighbor's house all day Tuesday as 70 reporters assembled on the front lawn and gawkers drove slowly past.

A statement for counsel for Vanderbilt Energy Corp. said the elder Hickley had "temporarily relinquished his duties" as chairman for the Denver-based firm "because of a tragedy involving a member of his family." John Hinckley, Jr., 25, who was arrested seconds after Reagan was shot in Washington, was being held Tuesday at a Marine base in Quantico, Va. The corporate statement did not mention any change for Scott Hinckley, vice president of operations for Vanderbilt and brother of John, Jr.

The father's move came amid confirmation that the Department of Energy was reviewing Vanderbilt's books. Jack Vandenberg, a DOE spokesman in Washington, said auditors met with Scott Hinckley in Denver on Monday. The Washington Star quoted an unnamed "White House official" as confirming that DOE auditors asked for an explanation of an overcharge when oil price controls were in effect between 1973 and 1981. The Star said DOE auditors told Scott Hinckley there was a possible penalty of $2 million for the overcharge.

End of Associated Press story from April 1, 1981. The above AP story is quoted not for commercial use but solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.

Why was Asma Abu al-Haija arrested? Why did she have to spend nine months in prison, sleeping on the floor of her cell? Why was a woman arrested, not interrogated, not accused of anything and then released nine very difficult months later, without any explanation? Just because she is a Palestinian, so anything can be done to her? Was she really arrested solely in order to put pressure on her husband, the Hamas spokesman in Jenin, who is also in Israeli prison? Is this legal? Moral? Could there be any other reason? If so, why wasn't she brought to trial for it? Forget justice, but what about a drop of compassion for a sick woman with a brain tumor, who is going blind, has undergone brain surgery twice, who has five children left alone at home in the refugee camp, without a mother, without a father, without their older brother?

All these questions continue to hover in the attractive home in the heart of the Jenin refugee camp, the home to which Asma Abu al-Haija finally returned a few weeks ago. She returned to her five free children and to a house that had been refurbished, and of course, there was much happiness.

Asma says the children became very independent when she was away. One after the other, they returned from school one afternoon this week, kissed their mother and tossed down their bookbags, as if nothing unusual had happened. Only 7-year-old Sajida still gets up sometimes in the middle of the night, frightened by the sound of tanks or jeeps in the street, and leaps into her mother's bed to hold her tight. Sajida has not forgotten that cold, dark night in February when the soldiers came and took her mother away. She won't ever forget it.

The birdcage is gone. For all those months, while workers repaired the house that had been wrecked by an IDF missile and the children were living there alone, the birdcage hung on the wall of the guest room and the chirping sounds gave the lonely children a little feeling of hope and warmth. Now only the electric doorbell at the entrance to the house still chirps like a bird.

"I want Mommy," Sajida told us on our first visit about six months ago. A month later, she proudly displayed the new dress--beige with embroidery--that she had bought for her mother for NIS 100 at the Al-Wafa store in Jenin, and the brown sandals and white veil--all in anticipation of her mother's release. Israel had just promised to ease conditions for the Palestinians and to make some goodwill gestures, and the people of Jenin were sure that the most humane gesture would be to release the ailing Asma.

Imad, her teenage son, got up early in the morning and went to the checkpoint to meet his mother. He stood in the sun for two hours until he realized that, goodwill gestures or not, his mother was not coming. There was much crying at home, and then they went back to their lives, without a mother or a father.

Asma Abu al-Haija was born 40 years ago in Jenin. At 19, she married a man now known as Sheikh Jamal, a religion teacher and son of the imam of Jenin. They lived in Yemen and Saudi Arabia for 10 years and returned to Jenin during the Gulf War. Since then, Sheikh Jamal has been in one prison after another: Six months in the Palestinian Authority prison, followed by seven arrests by Israel. He was wanted for two years by the IDF, and was caught and arrested about two years ago. In the brief interludes between his incarcerations, he appeared on international Arab television stations as the Hamas spokesman in Jenin. Asma says her husband is a politician. They haven't seen each other for two years. Six months before Jamal was apprehended, their eldest son, Abd al-Salam was sentenced to 87 months in prison for his activities in Hamas. Jamal is still awaiting a verdict in his trial.

On February 11 of this year, at 3 A.M., soldiers knocked on the door of the house. Asma got dressed and went downstairs. She was ill, suffering from terrible headaches caused by the tumor in her brain. The soldiers burst in, overturning everything in their path. The children were terrified. Sajida and Hamzi, the two youngest, cried. They were all ordered to go out into the street, in the cold and rain, until the search was finished. Then they were all brought into one room and a soldier called `Captain Jamal' came in.

"We want to take you in for questioning," the captain said.

"I haven't done anything. I just take care of the children," Asma tried to protest. "The Shin Bet wants to talk to you. Two words and you'll be back home." Having no choice, she accompanied the soldiers. She says she didn't take anything with her, because Captain Jamal said it would just be "two words" with the Shin Bet. The children shouted. Banan, a 17-year-old girl, said to the soldiers: "Take all of us, then. Why do you come and take someone else every time?" And Asma told the captain that she had to call someone to watch the children until morning. She was sure she'd be back very soon. But she remembers hearing one of the soldiers say to the children: "Find yourselves another mother."

As the court appointed attorney for Mr. Hussein, we would like to present the following articles in evidence as exhibits A through Z.

Now, Mr. Hussein, do you recognize the man who brought you the package of money and biological weapons in 1983 ? Is he present in the courtroom ? Would you please point him out the court ?

Oh, yeah, sure...this is gonna happen.

Bush is going to let Saddam sing like a Partridge in an Olive Tree.
I finally got a look at the footage.

I be in Jamaica Mon, and Me no see noBODY as high as Rasta Saddam when he come out da hole Mon.
Dey have the good stuff in Tikrit Mon. He was so drugged he coulda been hiding in Andy Warhol's apartment. They dressed him up to look like Jerry Garcia ca. 1967.

and I quote: "...Iraq, at the very least, is a nation of a thousand Jack Rubys."

Please also take a look at the lovely PRESS KIT, that was just coincidentally and oh so considerately prepared to give out to media, BEFORE the capture.

What would YOU say if there were gorgeous 8X10 glossies and handy one page bios available of Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan three hours BEFORE anyone got shot ? Yeah. Me, too.
Well, Mon, me be wanting some of that stuff Rasta Saddam be smokin', Mon.

Anyone out there know how to get Las Vegas oddsmakers quotes on when he bites the big one ?

I wanna lay the house and the kids....
And a parlay- Osama and Saddam in the same month- October 2004.

Then Me go to Tikrit, and buy some da GOOD stuff, Mon.

The Capture of Saddam: The Questions the Mainstream Media Aren't (as Usual) Asking

And there you were thinking I was just a paranoid loon with a conspiracy complex!

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.

The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Wednesday, 17 December 2003

I feel her eyes from across the room,
a furtive glance but she looks away.
Crystal-clear, beautiful blue eyes
bewitching me, they haunt my thoughts.
Like the glint of sunrise on morning dew,
the sparkle of something pure and true.
A smile so bright the clouds vanish in its wake
this warm ray of sunshine
bringing light to dark places.

Not long after September 11, 2001, a story surfaced on the Internet accusing the Israelis of taking part in a conspiracy that resulted in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The origin of the story was attributed to Jordan's Al Watan newspaper; and it was reported that Pakistani publications followed by Islamic clerics in the Middle East and Central Asia spread the story.

Another tragedy was born and reared out of those reports. A number of anti-Semitic bigots hopped on the bandwagon of that ill-considered, wild conjecture and misused it to feed their rant against Jews.

As might be expected, a number of people stormed onto the Internet to debunk the Israel conspiracy theories. That effectively put an end to questioning the official story of a plot generated by Osama bin Laden and executed by his Al-Qaeda operatives. No one dared ask the most important question: Who stood to benefit from the catastrophe that killed thousands on September 11, 2001?

Saudi Arabia? Michael Moore suggests this in Dude, Where’s My Country. But why? If there were an affair between Bush and the Saudi royal family, how would 9/11 ever benefit the Saudis? No conceivable benefit accrues to either the Saudi royal family or the Saudi military.

America's oil interests? This seems to be a favourite among guessing pundits. However, if the Bush cabal and the Saudis are in cahoots, they already have Middle East oil interests sewn up. There's plenty of time to worry about Afghanistan gas pipes and Iraqi oil when supplies get dangerously low. Why burn up millions of gallons of fuel in a war to protect fuel supplies for control of Iraqi oil? For what? In order to pay for the war costs?

What about G.W. Bush and the Republican Party? While the “Patriot” theme and “fighting terrorism” undoubtedly aided the Republicans in the 2002 elections as well as their legislative agenda, the risk of prolonged occupations accompanied by deaths of military personnel argue against any long term benefit to Bush and his party. Combine that with continued loss of credibility over the falsehoods used to justify unilateral attacks on Iraq, and any potential benefit seen earlier goes up in smoke.

The Bilderberg group and the financial interests of a "New World Order"? That international finance has been served by 9/11 seems obvious with the US being looted to serve a trans-national elite with no allegiance to any nation. That they're organized enough to plan and execute a national disaster like 9/11 is impossible. (http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Bilderbergers.html)

Israel? Without a sliver of doubt, Israel was/is the major benefactor of the 9/11 strike. How has Israel benefited? Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, believed that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction and Israel wanted Iraq neutralized before they had a chance to use them against Israel. (http://pballes.com/updates9.htm)

Israeli hawks have, since the beginnings of their occupation of Palestine, wanted to rid Palestine of the Palestinians. So long as Palestinians remained in the occupied territories, an Iraqi missile strike that would kill more Palestinians than Israelis was impossible. So long as Iraq possessed a capacity to even develop WMD’s it would be impossible for Israel to get rid of the Palestinians. Thus, getting control of Iraq facilitated Israel's ultimate desire to eliminate the Palestinians.

How does 9/11 fit into the Iraq-Israel scenario? 9/11 provided the clarion call for the so-called war against terrorism. Without 9/11, the U.S. would have had no excuse for invading Afghanistan. The battle against Al-Qaeda and bin Laden was the precursor to the invasion of Iraq; and the trumped up connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda provided the excuse for invading Iraq.

There's no doubt that Israel's Mossad, the Middle East intelligence experts as far as America is concerned, provided the assessment of Iraq's WMD's to America. The following Associated Press report (December 8, 2003) makes clear, though perhaps unwittingly, that Israelis believed that Iraq had WMD's.

ISRAELI intelligence overplayed the threat posed by Iraq and reinforced an assumption by American and British counterparts that Saddam Hussein had large caches of weapons of mass destruction, a retired Israeli general said today, after studying the run-up to the US-led invasion of Iraq.

The Israeli assessment may have been coloured by politics, including a desire to see Saddam Hussein toppled, said Shlomo Brom, once a senior Israeli military intelligence officer and now a researcher with Israel's top strategic think tank.

Brom stopped short of accusing intelligence officials of intentionally misleading Britain and the United States.

Brom said in an interview today that "Israeli intelligence was a full partner with the United States and Britain in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability".

He said Israeli intelligence "badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed".

Brom said the Israeli assessment might have been influenced by politics.

Brom's last comment was a gross understatement! And while he stopped short of accusing Mossad of intentionally misleading Britain and the United States, there's little doubt that's exactly what happened.

Considering again the answer to the question “who benefited from 9/11?” it becomes perfectly clear that Israel, and Israel alone, had reason to plot and execute the disaster that hit The World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the four flights involved in that fateful September day in 2001. Israel, however, couldn't possibly have executed such a plan alone without help from some US authorities. Who might possibly provide the means for accomplishing that genocidal goal?

The FBI and the CIA along with the general category of "the Bush Administration" have been suggested in conjecture about possible accomplices in a conspiracy. "The Bush Administration" is much too broad to even be nominated for serious consideration, with the ever-present possibility that somewhere among the ranks there might be a whistle blower with a conscience.

The FBI has certainly refused to cooperate with inquirers outside the government; but that refusal to release information in ongoing investigations cannot be logically interpreted as part of a cover-up. The same can be said for the CIA. Additionally people in both agencies have revealed that they had advanced knowledge of the potential hijackings.

Apart from other considerations, the CIA, having shared intelligence with Mossad and having been burnt on a number of those occasions with false intelligence, would have no love lost for the deceivers among their Israeli counterparts. According to Gordon Thomas, “both the FBI and CIA regard Mossad as a clear and present danger to U.S. national security.” (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/thomas2.html)

Who's left as cooperative partners in the 9/11 executions that would form the basis for the American invasions against all objections from most of the rest of the world? The process of elimination leaves only the Department of Defence (DoD). Its leaders are secretive enough to keep its plans under wraps. To violate the top-secret code of silence, even by someone who later felt moved by conscience to disclose the truth, would be cause for court martial and a death sentence for treason, if not to an assassination made to look like a suicide.

Unlike the CIA, which has "never killed Americans" in its covert activities, the DoD has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, both in the military and among civilians considered as collateral damage. The DoD has no qualms about killing Americans when it serves their purpose.

For 60 years the DoD managed to cover up their prior knowledge of the planned Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese that killed 4575 US Navy personnel. The DoD also stopped US fighter jets from scrambling to end the Israeli massacre of US Navy personnel on the USS Liberty. (http://www.ussliberty.org/)

The DoD is the only body that could have kept the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) from performing its duty to scramble fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes on 9/11. The DoD was in the position to stop the hijacked jets from performing their mission. They didn’t (http://www.publicaction.com/911/noradsend2.html), and they’ve never answered why they didn’t.

Similarly, just as they were in a position to stop the attack on Pearl Harbor, they did not. There was no excuse for that failure other than using the attack to justify U.S. entry into WWII. That the DoD did not intercept the hijacked aircraft on 9/11 is evidence that they wanted the end result to happen and participated in the attack.

Leading civilians in the DoD figure among US leaders serving Israel. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith have been more devoted to Israeli interests than they have to those of America. At best, they have acted as "dual loyalists."

Some background on these dual loyalists of the DoD:

Paul Wolfowitz, United States Secretary of Defence: "The neoconservative members of President Bush's cabinet led by Wolfowitz advocated pre-emptive strikes on terror cells in Afghanistan." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz)

"Wolfowitz, a 'hawkish' conservative military analyst under Ronald Reagan, had in the 1990s, during the Clinton presidency formulated a new foreign policy with regard to Iraq and other 'potential aggressor states', dismissing ‘containment’ in favour of ‘pre-emption’; strike first to eliminate threats.” Such a strike could not be made without an attack like Pearl Harbor or like 9/11. (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Paul_Wolfowitz)

Richard Perle, previously chairman, now member of the Defence Policy Board for the DoD: together with Douglas Feith and Richard Wurmser, Perle authored a paper “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” in 1996 which declared that “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq' was an “important Israeli strategic objective...” (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_N._Perle) That removal could not be accomplished without a 'casus belli' (an event used to justify war).

Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Policy at the U.S. Department of Defence: "A prolific writer, Feith has left a long paper trail of anti-Arab tracts and diatribes against those who challenge or seek to compromise Israel’s strength and as he defines it, ‘moral superiority’ over the Arabs." (http://middleeastinfo.org/article701.html) Feith would participate in any plot to advance Israel's interests at the expense of the Arabs.

Along with the DoD triumvirate, add the two white house controllers. First, David Wurmser, whose Israeli wife and close friend Perle make him the perfect conduit to VP Richard Cheney. "...it was precisely because of the strategic importance of the Levant that Wurmser advocated overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in favor of an Iraqi National Congress.... 'Whoever inherits Iraq dominates the entire Levant strategically,' he wrote in one 1996 paper for the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies." (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=David_Wurmser. Iraq could not be 'inherited' without 9/11 as an excuse for a pre-emptive strike.

The second, Elliot Abrams, described in The Nation as "the nastiest policy warrior as Washington has seen in decades" was convicted of lying to Congress about the Iran Contra affair and he serves Israel in the National Security Council. As Jim Lobe observed in Tom Paine "Israel's Likud Scores Big With White House Appointment." Abrams would have no qualms about sacrificing American lives for Israel's benefit.

All of these Likudite Bush aides are unequivocal supporters of Israel's conservative Likud Party, now headed by the 'Butcher of Sabra & Shatilla' Ariel Sharon; and the dual loyalists have past ties either to Likud or to Israeli companies.

Having eliminated the impossible, what remains is not as improbable as it might have looked at first. What remains are people in the DoD with a motive. Combine that with the history of deception of both Mossad and the DoD as well as their proven willingness to sacrifice American lives for their causes.

Victor Ostrovsky (By Way of Deception and The Other Side of Deception) made it perfectly clear that Mossad often infiltrated any organization it wanted to watch and/or control. For them, infiltrating Al-Qaeda cells would be a cinch; and getting a number of Arabs to hijack planes under any ruse would be normal Mossad behaviour. Ostrovsky, former Mossad agent, revealed how Mossad got America to bomb Libya and fight Iraq. There’s plenty of evidence of Mossad agents posing as Arabs, thus supplying the "means" for the attacks and blaming Al-Qaeda and the Arabs. (http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/Mossad/FakePalestinians.html)

There's no reason to believe that the Arabs involved in the hijacking, who were not the expert flyers with the skills required to accomplish the flying feats of 9/11, had a clue about where they would end up in planes guided by remote control. All the hijackers had to do was turn over the guidance to ground control in the hands of the DoD. (http://www.911-strike.com/remote_bb.htm)

Since the supposed Arab hijackers couldn't even fly small planes solo, according to the testimony of their flight instructors, and since remote control devices had proven effective, the process of elimination again points to the only conclusion remaining: 9/11 was planned and executed by Mossad and the DoD in order to justify military action in the Middle East for the major benefactor, Israel.

Until now, the belief that Israel could have anything to do with planning or executing the atrocities of 9/11 have been arbitrarily dismissed as ‘conspiracy theory’. The Anti Defamation League (ADL) in America has labelled any such beliefs as anti-Semitic. Conveniently, the ADL has chosen to ignore the fact that Arabs are also Semites. Furthermore, presenting a well-reasoned case against Israel—even when it or its agent’s activities are criminal—does not constitute anti Semitism. Israel, through its admittedly deceptive intelligence arm, Mossad, in tandem with a DoD run by "dual loyalists", had all that it takes to establish a case in a court of law: the means, the motive and the opportunity.

If the ADL or any other group wishes to protect its followers from the dangers of spreading anti-Semitism, they need to closely examine the activities of the war hawks in both Tel Aviv (or Jerusalem) and Washington. Most importantly, they need to ask and seek an honest answer to the question: who benefited from the catastrophe that killed thousands on September 11, 2001?

Tuesday, 16 December 2003

Let's just hope Junior screws himself before he screws the world. America, time to wake up....

The US president is facing a financial nightmare of his own making, and needs all the good news he can get

The Bush administration must take care not to spend High Value Target Number One all at once by letting a mob hang him this week. The president was too quick to declare Mission Accomplished on that aircraft carrier last spring; now he can say it's in the bag after all.

But Saddam is only one of the administration's aeroplanes, and the only one so far brought back to the carrier deck. There is still an entire squadron of foreign, domestic and economic policies lost in the clouds. If they don't come home safely, the Republicans might need a bit of Saddam to divert attention during the presidential campaign next autumn. Then they can hang him.

To hear the Republican image makers, the arrest of Saddam makes Bush's re-election next November inevitable. The discovery in the rat hole may indeed undermine the campaign of Howard Dean, who built his credibility and momentum on his early opposition to the war. But there are several other credible Democrats in the race. And there is plenty of time before the real campaign begins in September for the opposition to coalesce around a different candidate.

Meanwhile, of the issues left unresolved, the economy is the most threatening to Bush's popularity. A soaring stock market and an anaemic recovery in employment have alleviated the fear prevalent in the country (and the White House) this autumn. But there is no escape from deficits in the government budget and in trade. Bush is mother of one and midwife to the other. Together they could pull the US into the same financial hole that made Britain an IMF client 27 years ago - and before next year's election.

The dollar has already lost a third of its value against the euro. The decline could accelerate as the world loses confidence in the ability of the US to repay its massive and increasing debts. As a result, the dollars being paid to oil suppliers and to Chinese manufacturers are also declining in value. Might China revalue its currency? Could the oil industry shift to a euro-based pricing system? Either could send American inflation soaring, driving up interest rates. The bond and stock markets would crash. So would house prices and consumer spending.

Bush has engaged in a campaign of voter bribery in the past two years unrivalled in US history. The tax cuts came first, a gift to corporate and upper-income America that will hobble the country for a generation or more. And there were breathtaking increases in farm subsidies to buy loyalty in the heartland.

Illegal tariffs in 2002 on steel imports bought support from coal miners, railway workers and steel unions in the critical states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. Proposals last month for duties on Chinese textiles were intended to purchase the loyalty of low-wage workers in Georgia and the Carolinas - even if they offended a nation emerging as one of America's biggest bankers.

The tax cuts have created runaway deficits. The farm subsidies contributed to the collapse of the Cancun trade talks. Bush had to abandon the steel tariffs last week in the face of threats of counter-measures from the EU.

If the economic plane loses altitude quickly before November, there will be no place to land. Remember when the pound nearly reached $1 in 1984? It could soar to $2.50 in six months. Remember when UK interest rates touched 15% in 1993? US rates could shoot up by the election if the central bank has to rush to defend the dollar, as the Bank of England did for the pound before Britain exited the exchange rate mechanism.

Where exactly is the inquest that Tony mentioned anyway? Hmmm, something smells here: 9/11 - no investigation; Diana Crash - no inquest. How is it that David Kelly merits an instant inquest at the hands of Lord Hutton but Diana doesn't? Where there's smoke there's fire and this has "dodgy" written all over it.

More than six years after the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al-Fayed, the questions surrounding the Paris car crash in which they were killed continue to grip the public imagination.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh became the centre of international attention yesterday as Mohamed al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods, pursued his search for the truth about how, or why, his son and Diana died.

"I have been fighting for six years, but I can see the light and justice can be done. What I am doing is for the nation and for the ordinary people ... Eighty-five per cent believe Diana was murdered with my son."

The court heard Mr Fayed’s counsel contend that he had "substantial grounds" for fearing that the British security services were implicated. The crash, it was claimed, had "striking similarities" to an earlier MI6 plot to remove Slobodan Milosevic, then president of Serbia.

Colin Boyd, QC, the Lord Advocate, has refused an inquiry into the crash, but Mr Fayed maintains that as a resident of Scotland, at Balnagown Castle, Kildary, Easter Ross, he is entitled to secure his rights under the tenets of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Mr Fayed argues there should be an effective, official inquiry when someone appears to have been killed as a result of the use of force and is asking Lord Drummond Young to set aside the Lord Advocate’s decision as incompatible with the ECHR.

Richard Keen, QC, for Mr Fayed, said that the official line from the French police after the crash in a tunnel in Paris in the early hours of 31 August, 1997, was that it had been an accident caused by Henri Paul, assistant head of security at the Ritz hotel and the driver of the Mercedes the couple died in. The French police said Mr Paul was drunk and on anti-depressants at the time of the crash. Mr Paul also died in the incident.

"He [Mr Paul] had been in the Ritz Hotel for two hours before he left and is recalled by all those who spoke with him as being entirely sober," said Mr Keen. He said British and American security services were monitoring Diana and Dodi in the month leading up to their deaths and that Henri Paul may have been an MI6 informant.

And on the night of the crash Mr Paul had taken a "highly unusual route" from the Ritz to Dodi’s apartment.

The QC said pieces of a broken tail-light, from a white Fiat Uno, had been found at the scene of the crash, and there were marks on the bumper of the Mercedes.

It's a shame nobody paid any attention to Ike when he said this, we might have avoided a lot of death in the last 100 years.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." ---- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

In the United States last year there were over 11,000 deaths by firearms. No other nation comes even close to matching this appetite for death. That is eight thousand more than died on 9/11, but about the same number as those innocent Iraqi civilians that perished by our actions in Gulf War II. And the costs to society from injuries and death due to firearms you ask? More than $60 billion. Those who produce instruments of death in this country are not ignorant, however; they know the statistics, they simply brush them aside. Profit, after all, is much more important than stopping Americans from arming themselves to the teeth and killing each other. What else explains the gun lobby’s attempts to go against common sense? The Second Amendment must be honored and preserved, they say, even if the Founding Fathers lived in times of muskets, Indians, English threats and manifest destiny, never imagining the killing power of today’s firearms. It is no coincidence, then, that the same nation that allows so many of its citizens to die at the hands of loaded weapons would naturally export its appetite for human death abroad.

Today, the U.S. is responsible for 40% of all worldwide weapons’ sales. Tanks, fighter jets, artillery, helicopters, missiles, landmines, machine guns, mortars, bullets, grenades, guns, you name it, Guns’R’U.S. has it. Our nation supplies the world in instruments of death. The United States’ Military Industrial Complex (MIC) makes a killing from death, suffering and destruction. It exists only if people die. Its signature is everywhere; in the millions of landmines buried worldwide and the millions of amputee victims, many of them children. It can be seen in civil wars that ravage the developing world, from Africa to Asia to Latin America. From sea to shining sea, our weapons we can see, from the exponentially growing threat of WMDs – many of which were distributed at one time by our own government – to the military hardware of tyrants and dictators, war criminals and warlords.

The MIC’s front for assuring continual human violence is the US government, the Pentagon in particular. President Bush has just granted the Pentagon a military budget of $400 billion dollars for the next fiscal year. That’s $400,000,000,000.00. This, of course, does not include our little warmongering expedition to the Fertile Crescent, which by last estimates had already cost an additional $160 billion more. With so much of our money going to the Department of War one has to wonder where our priorities are. Certainly not in education, healthcare or in the creation of jobs.

The Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex are one and the same, having morphed over time to form the most lethal killing institution the world has ever seen. Through a sliding and revolving door that turns citizen soldiers into armament industry executives and company officers into military policy makers, the MIC has embedded itself into the military branch of the US government, thereby assuring itself of unlimited contracts, access, information and profit. Military industry executives and lobbyists have also slithered deep into top administration positions, occupying vitally important posts that decide national and foreign policy. Ex top government officials now sit on boards of today’s biggest suppliers of military might. One need only look to the Carlyle Group to find the marriage between government and MIC. George Bush the First had until recently sat on the board of this powerful yet clandestine group. This intertwined dancing tango of cronyism is exactly what Eisenhower warned about. Like a virus MIC has spread itself throughout the hallways of the Pentagon, penetrating from top to bottom through the disease called greed. Now one and the same, the Pentagon and MIC have a common interest, motive and ability to shape how funds are used and wars are waged.

The Pentagon is the Department of War, not Defense. It is in business to kill, kill, and kill some more. Without war, violence and weapons there is no Pentagon. And so to survive, to remain a player, wars must be created, weapons must be allocated, profits must be made and the Military Industrial Complex must continue exporting and manufacturing violence and conflict throughout the globe. And, as always, in the great tradition of the United States, enemies must exist. Indians, English, Mexicans, Spanish, Nazis, Koreans, Communists and now the ever-ambiguous Terrorists. The Cold War came to an end and so too the great profits of the MIC. Reductions in the Pentagon budget threatened the lifeblood of the industry; a new enemy had to be unearthed. There is no war – hence no profit – without evildoers, without terrorists lurching at every corner, waiting patiently for the moment to strike, instilling fear into our lives, absorbing our attention.

We are told our nation is in imminent danger, that we are a mushroom cloud waiting to happen. And so we fear, transforming our mass uneasiness into nationalistic and patriotic fervor, wrapping ourselves up in the flag and the Military Industrial Complex. We have fallen into the mouse trap, becoming the subservient slaves of an engine run by greed, interested not in peace but constant war, constant killing and constant sacrifice to the almighty dollar. Brainwashed to believe that War is Peace we sound the drums of war, marching our sons and daughters to a battle that cannot be won either by sword or gun.

We are programmed to see the world as a conflict between "Us" versus "Them", "Good" versus "Evil," that we must inflict death on those who are not with us and on those against us. The MIC prays on our human emotions and psychology, exploiting human nature and our still fragile memories of the horrors of 9/11, manipulating us to believe that what they say and do is right for us all. We unite behind one common enemy, fearing for our lives, complacent and obedient, blindly descending like a plague of locusts onto foreign land, devastating, usurping, conquering and devouring those who have been deemed enemies of the state, those who harbor and live among them, "evilones," "evildoers" and "haters of freedom," all for the sake of profit and pillage, ideology and empire. Power unfettered and unleashed, our freedoms die and are released

The so-called "War on Terror" is but a charade, a fear-engendering escapade, designed to last into perpetuity, helping guarantee that the Military Industrial Complex will grow exponentially in power. It is a replacement for a Cold War long ago since retired and unable to deliver a massive increase in defense spending. Terrorists and the countries that harbor them have replaced the Soviet Union and Communists as enemy number one. With a war that may go on indefinitely, pursuing an enemy that lives in shadows and in the haze of ambiguity, the MIC will grow ever more powerful, conscripting hundreds of thousands of our youth, sending them to guide, operate and unleash their products of death.

Rumblings of bringing back the draft are growing louder, and if you think your children and grandchildren will escape it, think again. In a war without end, in battles that do not cease, the MIC will need human flesh from which to recycle those who perish and fall wounded. Empire building needs bodies and drones to go with military might, instruments of death need trigger fingers and human brains, and, with so many expendable young men and women being conditioned in this so-called "war on terror," MIC will continue its reprogramming of citizen soldiers from peaceful civilians to warmongering killing machines. After all, "War is Peace."

Yet the Department of War, ever steadfast to use its weaponry, fails to realize that no amount of money will win this war if the root causes of terrorism are not confronted as priority number one. If you get to the roots, you pull out the weed. If not, it grows back again and again. But perhaps a perpetual war is what MIC has sought all along. A lifetime of combat, a lifetime of profit, a lifetime of power. Assembly lines of missiles, bombs, tanks and aircraft operate without pause, helping expand a sluggish economy and the interests of the Pax Americana. Profit over people, violence before peace, the American killing machine continues on its path to human extinction, and it is the hands and minds of our best and brightest building and creating these products of decimation.

The capture of Saddam Hussein proves one thing and one thing only - That with a $400 billion military and intelligence apparatus, and with 150 billion dollars of more cash ripped off from the American people and with another 25 million dollar reward as bounty to offer anyone with information (also stolen from future generations of young Americans) that Bush can force future generations of Americans to pay the price to clean up the mess THAT HIS FATHER CREATED.

Lets all celebrate that WE ARE BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED FROM... duh.

Remember, IT WAS GEORGE BUSH SR. WHO GAVE SADDAM HUSSEIN HIS FIRST ANTHRAX SAMPLES! The scumbags in the American news media don't think that little detail is important for you to know, so don't expect them to remind you of this FACT.

So here's the score - Bush just spent the entire wealth of America for this generation and several others to CLEAN UP THE MESS THAT FATHER GOT US INTO IN THE FIRST PLACE. So now we are at square one again, where we were thirty years ago. And this jerk is going to try to be a hero again and gloat gloat gloat.

It proves that if you are a corrupt scumbag president that you can transform America into a fascist mafia thug state and rampage around the world and capture and kill any person on this planet and loot their property. That's what it proves. It proves that the evil filth behind American capitalism can kill or capture at will. The United States has just spent it's entire wealth to avenge Bushes' dad's ORIGINAL FAILURE. So now that the Bushes have CLEANED UP THE PROBLEM THAT THEY HAVE CREATED, we're supposed to be happy?

Well, in the world of televisual simulation that America has aparantly become, that is indeed what we are programmed to be. They cannot give us any real growth (Because a looter never can) so what they give us is the BIG FAKE OUT. And we're supposed to suck on that and be happy.

Bush and his NeoCon looters keep sucking and sucking on the world and Americans keep on sucking and sucking on the television. This world is being transformed into one big suckfest.

This Bush scum is no different than Hussein. Saddam Hussein had the luxury of just killing his enemies out in the open. The Bushes would kill each and every single person who opposed them if they could get away with it, but there's this pesky constitution which restricts the actions of filth like Bush and his dad, which prevents this. But not for long though. Soon they will completely abolish the constitution (which will happen before next November). But until then, the Bushes are forced to kill their opposition in a stealthy manor - Suicides, accidents, cancers - that's how the Bushes do it. That's how they did it to people like Paul Wellstone, James Hatfield, Marge Schoedinger and many others you will never hear of.

Now regarding Saddam Hussein - It is a possibility that Saddam will not make it to trial. It is entirely possible that Saddam will be "Oswalded." Because after all, if Saddam Hussein went to trial then it would give him a chance to tell the world who put him in power - THE CIA, and who gave him the bio and chemical weapons of mass destruction - Bush Sr!

So my guess is that quite possibly the hit will be made to look like forces loyal to Saddam tried to free him from captivity and Saddam was killed in the mayhem. Or a sudden illness or unexpected cancer will surface on Saddam and consume him quickly. I think the last thing in the world that this shithead in the White House needs is Saddam Hussein in a courtroom recounting the many years of support and assistance by Bushes father in developing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Good, Tony deserves to have the heat turned right up. At least some of our so-called "representatives" are doing a bit of representing! Do you really think that the bedraggled bum-looking dude that came out of that hole really had an arsenal of nasty WMD? If you believe that I've got a pier to sell you!

Tony Blair's delight at the capture of Saddam Hussein was tempered yesterday when Labour MPs warned that it had not changed the fundamental flaws in the legal and moral case for the Iraq war.

Several MPs warned that the Government would come under increasing pressure to find hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq now that its former dictator was behind bars.

While Saddam's arrest appeared to swing US public opinion behind the war, Mr Blair found that MPs who opposed the war were in no mood to tone down criticisms of his actions. Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, said: "I don't think this makes a difference for us because the war was about WMD and the threat from them. It might make a difference in America where the war was personalised.

"They said they would find weapons immediately after the war. I doubt he has in his memory banks the location of all his weapons. But if they have him under lock and key and they can still not find his weapons it will show that the whole thing was a sham."

In a letter to Mr Blair, Graham Allen, a former government whip, warned: "With Saddam a captive, the world will now expect these weapons to be found. They represent his only bargaining counter with the Allies and he can expect only a short time to use it. If Saddam does not within the next month or two offer some evidence which leads to a discovery of WMD, the world will draw the reasonable inference that he never had any. If that happens, I hope that the Government will accept this conclusion too."

Super, now we know who's REALLY sending us all that spam and trying to discredit the Internet... All I can say is; "Only from my cold, dead hands will they remove my mouse!" Freedom of expression is the only one of our "inalienable rights" that really means a damn if you ask me, it's the foundation for all the others. Without it you can't have any other freedoms because you're not really "free" if you can't speak your mind without fear of persecution. We (sort of) have that freedom now in the UK but it wouldn't take much more "terrorism" for them to take it away (which they have "contingency" plans for, by the way) then my friends we're all royally screwed. Colour me paranoid if you like, I like to call it vigilance. I would rather be a little mistrusting and paranoid than mindlessly ascede control of my life to a bunch of elitist assholes who are only interested in lining their pockets. Besides, if you think of Orwell and Huxley, I'd say I'm in pretty good company.

Unthinkable: How the Internet could become a tool of corporate and government power, based on updates now in the works

Picture, if you will, an information infrastructure that encourages censorship, surveillance and suppression of the creative impulse. Where anonymity is outlawed and every penny spent is accounted for. Where the powers that be can smother subversive (or economically competitive) ideas in the cradle, and no one can publish even a laundry list without the imprimatur of Big Brother. Some prognosticators are saying that such a construct is nearly inevitable. And this infrastructure is none other than the former paradise of rebels and free-speechers: the Internet.

To those exposed to the Panglossian euphoria of Net enthusiasts during the 1990s, this vision seems unbelievable. After all, wasn’t the Internet supposed to be the defining example of empowering technology? Freedom was allegedly built into the very bones of the Internet, designed to withstand nuclear blasts and dictatorial attempts at control. While this cyberslack has its downside—porn, credit-card fraud and insincere bids on eBay—it was considered a small price to pay for free speech and friction-free business models. The freedom genie was out, and no one could put it back into the bottle.

Certainly John Walker believed all that. The hackerish founder of the software firm Autodesk, now retired to Switzerland to work on personal projects of his choosing, enjoyed “unbounded optimism” that the Net would not only offset the powers of industry and government but actually restore some previously threatened personal liberties. But in —the past couple of years, he noticed a disturbing trend. Developments in technology, law and commerce seemed to be directed toward actually changing the open nature of the Net. And Internet Revisited would create opportunities for business and government to control and monitor cyberspace.

In September Walker posted his fears in a 28,000-word Web document called the Digital Imprimatur. The name refers to his belief that it’s possible that nothing would be allowed to even appear on the Internet without having a proper technical authorization.

How could the freedom genie be shoved back into the bottle? Basically, it’s part of a huge effort to transform the Net from an arena where anyone can anonymously participate to a sign-in affair where tamperproof “digital certificates” identify who you are. The advantages of such a system are clear: it would eliminate identity theft and enable small, secure electronic “microtransactions,” long a dream of Internet commerce pioneers. (Another bonus: arrivederci, unwelcome spam.) A concurrent step would be the adoption of “trusted computing,” a system by which not only people but computer programs would be stamped with identifying marks. Those would link with certificates that determine whether programs are uncorrupted and cleared to run on your computer.

The best-known implementation of this scheme is the work in progress at Microsoft known as Next Generation Secure Computing Base (formerly called Palladium). It will be part of Longhorn, the next big Windows version, out in 2006. Intel and AMD are onboard to create special secure chips that would make all computers sold after that point secure. No more viruses! And the addition of “digital rights management” to movies, music and even documents created by individuals (such protections are already built into the recently released version of Microsoft Office) would use the secure system to make sure that no one can access or, potentially, even post anything without permission.

The giants of Internet commerce are eager to see this happen. “The social, economic and legal priorities are going to force the Internet toward security,” says Stratton Sclavos, CEO of VeriSign, a company built to provide digital certificates (it also owns Network Solutions, the exclusive handler of the “dot-com” part of the Internet domain-name system). “It’s not going to be all right not to know who’s on the other end of the wire.” Governments will be able to tax e-commerce—and dictators can keep track of who’s saying what.

Monday, 15 December 2003

The only thing that the Bushies have really proven themselves any good at is spinning, lying, supressing and general obfuscating anything that remotely resembles truth. To ignore the numbers of Iraqis killed just confirms that they really are inhuman monsters.

In a crude effort to cover up the extent of its crimes in Iraq, the US occupation authority has brought pressure to bear on the country’s health ministry officials to halt a count of civilians killed and injured during the US-led invasion in March and subsequently.

Head of the ministry’s statistics department Dr Nagham Mohsen told the media last Wednesday that she had been summoned by the director of planning Dr Nazar Shabandar last month and told to stop a survey of hospitals aimed at tallying civilian casualties. He had also ordered her not to release any of the partial information that had been collected to date.

Mohsen said Shabandar had been acting on behalf of Health Minister Dr Khodeir Abbas—a member of US-imposed puppet administration, the Iraqi Governing Council. “We stopped the collection of this information because our minister didn’t agree with it,” she said. “The CPA [the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority] doesn’t want this to be done.”

Abbas is out of the country at a conference in Egypt but, at the prompting of the CPA, issued a statement denying he or US occupation authorities had anything to do with the order. “I have no knowledge of a civilian war casualty survey even being started by the Ministry of Health, much less stopping it,” he stated, adding: “The CPA did not direct me to stop any such survey.”

Abbas’ comments are simply not credible. The ministry began its survey in July by sending out letters to all hospitals and clinics in Iraq, asking them to send details of civilians killed or wounded in the war. The study was reported in the media as early as August and a preliminary figure of 1,764 deaths has been made public. A final report was being anticipated by the media and human rights organisations. Significantly neither Abbas nor the CPA has moved to reinstate the study.

From the outset, the Pentagon has refused to keep its own tally of Iraqi casualties. US military spokesmen have contemptuously dismissed news of civilian deaths and injuries as the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of war, insisting that American and allied troops have avoided targetting civilians. But reports from a variety of sources tell a different story: that thousands of civilians have been killed, many of them through indiscriminate air strikes and the extensive use of cluster bombs.

A Los Angeles Times survey of 27 Baghdad hospitals found that at least 1,700 civilians died in the Iraqi capital alone in the five weeks from March 20, when the US invasion was launched. A more comprehensive tally by Associated Press based on information from about half of Iraq’s hospitals put the civilian death toll at 3,240 for the month following March 20.

In late October, the Project on Defence Alternatives, a US thinktank, published a report based on hospital records, official US military statistics and news reports. It estimated that between March 20 and May 1, when Bush declared the end of major combat operations, between 3,200 and 4,300 non-combatant civilians were killed in the fighting.

The Iraq Body Count, which estimates the number of civilian deaths based on a careful correlation of media reports, puts the figure far higher. Between March 20 and May 1, between 5,708 and 7,356 Iraqi civilians were killed and the number has continued to climb. The latest figures listed on its website [www.iraqbodycount.net] put the death toll at between 7,935 and 9,766.

Eisenhower tried to warn us about this in the final speech of his presidency, looks like nobody listened to him... Either that or it was even too late back then, given the stuff that's come out about WHO financed Herr Hitler it seems to point to this self-same military industrial complex. I bet they sleep really soundly in their expensive beds knowing that they are responsible for virtually all the misery and suffering that exists in the world.

by Eric Margolis

As I walked along the elegant Quai d'Orsay, past France's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Talleyrand's wonderfully cynical bon mot about Napoleon's murder of the Duc d'Enghien kept coming back to me: "Worse than a crime, it was a blunder."

Napoleon's foreign minister could just as well have been speaking of Iraq.

France repeatedly warned the Bush administration against invading Iraq. DGSE, the French intelligence service, had highly placed agents within Saddam Hussein's regime and informed the U.S. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, posed no threat and would, if invaded, turn into a second Lebanon or West Bank.

Warnings by France and other European powers were sneeringly dismissed by the war's principal architects, among them U.S. Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, whose strategy was based in large part on disinformation from shady defectors and self-serving sources.

Totally wrong about Iraq, Wolfowitz and fellow neo-cons are now punishing those who were totally right.

France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Greece, and China - and maybe or maybe not Canada - were blacklisted from $18.6 billion US of "reconstruction" contracts in Iraq.

The laughable reason: "To protect the essential security interests of the United States." Albania and Uzbekistan are approved vendors.

"Reconstruction" is a euphemism for repairing massive damage inflicted on Iraq, formerly the Arab world's most developed nation, by a decade of crushing American-led sanctions and bombing.

French diplomats at the Quai d'Orsay are asking whatever happened to Colin Powell, who is supposed to head U.S. foreign policy? Wolfowitz seems to be running foreign as well as defence policy now. The hapless Powell has been demoted to messenger.

Banning staunch allies like France and Germany from rebuilding Iraq is not only foolishly vindictive and ham-handed, it is downright stupid, a condition now epidemic at the Pentagon's highest civilian echelons.

America's affronted allies, facing domestic outrage over this insult, must now take overt or covert counter-action, worsening U.S.-European relations.

Ironically, the spiteful ban undermines intense U.S. efforts to draw Europe into the Iraq mess.

All this could have been done quietly.

Instead, Wolfowitz created an unnecessary trans-Atlantic fracas that again shows the alarming diplomatic ineptitude and political crassness of the Bush administration. Embarrassingly, the American blacklist was issued just as Bush was calling European leaders, trying to get them to forgive Iraq's huge debts. The president was left red-faced. Many wondered who really was running the administration.

The exclusion of some of America's oldest friends from Iraq underlines the point that the U.S. invasion was really motivated by big oil and big business, rather than the faux war on terrorism or Baghdad's non-existent unconventional weapons.

Few people realize how important the occupation of oil-rich Iraq is to America's military-industrial-petroleum complex, a major financial backer of Bush and the Republican party. Defence spending, spurred by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, will reach $3.1 trillion US over the next two years - the same amount, in constant dollars, the U.S. spent on World War II!

Just in case you thought us Brits were any better than our brethren across the Atlantic, there are demons in both governments hell-bent on abrogating democracy and all the other things they bleat on about incessantly.

We damn the Americans for Guantanamo, yet we are doing exactly the same thing in south-east London

by Nick Cohen

Margaret Drabble spoke for much of the intelligentsia when she told the Daily Telegraph: 'My anti-Americanism has become almost uncontrollable. It has possessed me like a disease.' So severe was the infection she was unable to look at anything American without retching. 'I can't keep it down any longer. I detest Disneyfication, I detest Coca-Cola, I detest burgers, I detest sentimental and violent Hollywood movies that tell lies about history. I detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism about victories it didn't even win.'

Worse than the Big Macs and the fizzy drinks was the indefinite detention 'without charge or trial or access to lawyers' of the 600 or so inmates at Guantanamo Bay, 'the Bastille of America'. It has turned the novelist into an activist who has vowed to keep writing to Jack Straw and his successors at the Foreign Office 'until something happens'. She isn't alone. From the Mail on the Right - Guantanamo 'spits in the face of what most reasonable people in this country would regard as justice' - to the Mirror on the Left - 'the treatment of prisoners defies decency and civilised convention' - the campaign against imprisonment without trial has united left-wing comedians with right-wing pundits, Law Lords with poets, bishops with actresses.

It is not without its hypocrisies. If you want to find men indefinitely imprisoned without trial, you don't have to go to Cuba. You can get them at home. Yet the internment of Arab terrorist suspects in Britain has passed largely unnoticed. There are no outraged playwrights or demands in Parliament to defend the basic principles of British justice. Civil liberties groups try periodically to make internment a cause célèbre, but find few takers. On the one hand, public pressure has forced New Labour to lobby Washington to give the British inmates in Guantanamo Bay a fair trial. On the other, public indifference has given it free rein to intern foreigners in Britain without a fair trial.

Centuries of experience have taught the British how to suspend the rule of law without an embarrassing fuss. They know that these matters must be handled with delicacy, and that the clumsy spectacles of the meretricious Yanks must be avoided. Britain hasn't made the mistake of providing electrifying footage. Belmarsh Prison in south-east London, where most of the detainees are held, is as drab as Guantanamo is exotic. There aren't pictures of the British detainees in fluorescent jump suits being frogmarched in manacles. Amnesty International, which brought out a report last week to mark the second anniversary of the detention, points out that the 14 internees are held in small cells for 22 hours a day. Hardly anyone sees them, let alone photographs them. Their lawyers have got court orders stopping the press identifying most of the 14 on the grounds that their families would be identified as the families of 'terrorists' when no one has been convicted of terrorism before a properly constituted court. The prohibition seems compassionate, but it hobbles the media. We need names and, above all, pictures to make a story work. That there are only 14 detainees is a further reason for the silence, but there may also be a discreditable emotion at work.

It's easy to slag off Bush; in many circles it's social death to do anything else. It's easy, too, to demand justice on the other side of the world. It's harder to demand that the prison doors open in Woolwich to let out men the Government swears have links to al-Qaeda. A cowardly voice whispers: 'What if they're right? What if they know they're al-Qaeda and just can't cut through the legal red tape? What if we win, and they're freed to pull off the big one - not in New York or Istanbul but here in Britain? We'll have blood on our hands, maybe our blood. Better and safer to shut up and concentrate on the ghastly Americans.'

Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the American federal government. That sounds pretty deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of them – the soldiers as well as Hussein – have received pay from the United States for services rendered.

It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed lo these last twelve years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse for the better part of a decade.

If this were a Tom Clancy movie, we would be watching the dramatic capture of Hussein somewhere in the last ten minutes of the tale. The bedraggled dictator would be put on public trial for his crimes, sentenced to several thousand concurrent life sentences, and dragged off to prison in chains. The anti-American insurgents in Iraq, seeing the sudden futility of their fight to place Hussein back into power, would lay down their arms and melt back into the countryside. For dramatic effect, more than a few would be cornered by SEAL teams in black facepaint and discreetly shot in the back of the head. The President would speak with eloquence as the martial score swelled around him. Fade to black, roll credits, get off my plane.

The real-world version is certainly not lacking in drama. The streets of Baghdad were thronged on Sunday with mobs of Iraqi people celebrating the final removal of a despot who had haunted their lives since 1979. Their joy was utterly unfettered. Images on CNN of Hussein, looking for all the world like a Muslim version of Charles Manson while getting checked for head lice by an American medic, were as surreal as anything one might ever see on a television.

Unfortunately, the real-world script has a lot of pages left to be turned. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, reached at his home on Sunday, said, “It’s great that they caught him. The man was a brutal dictator who committed terrible crimes against his people. But now we come to rest of story. We didn’t go to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found.” Ray McGovern, senior analyst and 27-year veteran of the CIA, echoed Ritter’s perspective on Sunday. “It’s wonderful that he was captured, because now we’ll find out where the weapons of mass destruction are,” said McGovern with tongue firmly planted in cheek. “We killed his sons before they could tell us.”

Indeed, reality intrudes. The push for war before March was based upon Hussein’s possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin gas, mustard gas, and VX nerve gas, along with 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents, uranium from Niger to be used in nuclear bombs, and let us not forget the al Qaeda terrorists closely associated with Hussein who would take this stuff and use it against us on the main streets and back roads of the United States.

When they found Hussein hiding in that dirt hole in the ground, none of this stuff was down there with him. The full force of the American military has been likewise unable to locate it anywhere else. There is no evidence of al al Qaeda agents working with Hussein, and Bush was forced some weeks ago to publicly acknowledge that Hussein had nothing to do with September 11. The Niger uranium story was debunked last summer.

Conventional wisdom now holds that none of this stuff was there to begin with, and all the clear statements from virtually everyone in the Bush administration squatting on the public record describing the existence of this stuff looks now like what it was then: A lot of overblown rhetoric and outright lies, designed to terrify the American people into supporting an unnecessary go-it-alone war. Said war made a few Bush cronies rich beyond the dreams of avarice while allowing some hawks in the Defense Department to play at empire-building, something they have been craving for more than ten years.

Of course, the rhetoric mutated as the weapons stubbornly refused to be found. By the time Bush did his little ‘Mission Accomplished’ strut across the aircraft carrier, the occupation was about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of the Iraqi people. No longer were we informed on a daily basis of the “sinister nexus between Hussein and al Qaeda,” as described by Colin Powell before the United Nations in February. No longer were we fed the insinuations that Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11. Certainly, any and all mention of weapons of mass destruction ceased completely. We were, instead, embarking on some noble democratic experiment.

The capture of Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad, feeds nicely into these newly-minted explanations. Mr. Bush and his people will use this as the propaganda coup it is, and to great effect. But a poet once said something about tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow.

Friday, 12 December 2003

We are the chemical generation
we demand instant satisfaction.
We seek harmony and unity,
truth and commonality of purpose.
And sometimes we just seek escape,
in this world gone mad, where
everyone seems to have gone bad.
Poor people starve and die
while the rich tell bald-faced lies.

We are powerless to stop it,
or so we think.
As we loose ourselves
in fuzzy little spaces
and noisy dark places.
The world ignores us
so we ignore it.

Enlightenment

Do you feel like you're living in some Orwellian nightmare? Or perhaps you feel as if you're plugged into The Matrix? Well if so, you've come to the right place. No matter how messed up you thought the world was, by the time you've finished reading some of the things I've found on my travels in Cyberspace you'll realise that 1984 was just a typo!

A note to the non-ravers out there: codshit is
NOT a derogatory or insulting term and bears no relation in offensiveness to its four-letter cousin, it's a word used to describe the nonsense that people sometimes talk when they are off their heads. To understand what codshit is watch the film Human Traffic.

Comments are welcome, but before you waste perfectly useful energy abusing me please take a moment to reflect on the basic right we all have to express ourselves!

Please remember that I am not telling you what to think or believe, take everything you read here with a large grain of salt!

Wisdom

If you confront the Universe with good intentions in your heart it will reflect that and reward your intent... usually... It just doesn't always do it in the way you expect.
.: G'kar :.

So there, we have figured it out, go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed America, here's American Gladiators. Here's 56 channels of it. Watch these pituitary retards bang their fuckin skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America, you are free... to do as we tell you.
.: Bill Hicks :.

Let there be no doubt that the people of the free world are engaged in a war... In the next few years, we are either going to see the people of the free world rise up against these fascists, now setting the stage for global war, or we are going to see the end of democracy as we know it with martial law the end result.
.: David Shayler :.

Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.
.: Albert Einstein :.